I'd say that the key problem is ignorance. An example would be you, there was no "verdict". A grand jury looked at some evidence and heard from the cop and decided not to indict the cop for homicide. So there will be no trial and therefore no verdict.
Subtle distinction, I know, but still.
People are pissed, including the American Bar Association and most major newspaper's editors because of the way the GJ was conducted. Normally, a prosecutor calls a GJ for the purpose of securing an indictment and argues the evidence in front of the jurors as well as guides them through the evidence and rakes the suspect over the coals with tough questioning. The suspects, (or subjects), are not allowed to have their lawyers present during this process and it is always quite easy for a good prosecutor to at least create enough doubt to get an indictment and hold a trial where both sides will argue their cases, present witnesses and try to show who is lying. Someone is lying in this homicide, that's not in question.
A prosecutor's job is to prosecute. A defense lawyer's job is to exonerate. This cock sucker forgot which side he was on and did everything in his power to insure that the cop who shot the kid did not have to face trial. He did not argue the evidence, he did not even question the cop in front of the GJ, (Wilson was only questioned by the jurors), and he did a "document dump" on them where he simply unloaded a mountain of evidence and data on them and they had to sort through it and try to make sense of it all. This was unprecedented in the eyes of most professional legal observers. Normally, the prosecutor guides the jurors through the evidence carefully, presenting only the pieces necessary to secure an indictment so that he can have a trial. Then at the trial, where both sides get their day in court, there will be a verdict.
He decided beforehand that the cop was innocent of wrongdoing and did everything in his power to protect him. If you Fox News watching, ignorant sacks of dung understood the legal system at all, (your duty as an American, really), you would know why a lot of people are unhappy that this cop will not have his day in court. His story does not add up, unless you've already made up your mind that he could not possibly be lying because he shot a "thug". You probably know nothing about the very recent history of the Ferguson PD and their record with the community they police, the time the city charged a guy with destruction of govt. property for bleeding on a cop's uniform after they beat the schit out of him, etc.
There is more to the story. But stay ignorant. It's your duty.
